Yeah, while I might take issue with some elements of his characterization, the performance itself was very entertaining. I was a little surprised how quickly they brushed over his history with M, as based on her little snippet of exposition she essentially betrayed him to the Chinese for doing what Bond does in every single film (i.e. ignoring orders/going beyond mission parameters). It felt like they might have been leading up a more substantial pay-off with M at the end, but then it fell back on "crazy, quip, dead."

I was expecting her to have some sort of sacrificial death, her jumping in front of a bullet meant for 007 (but more creative) then he kills Bardem. Would've contributed to the overall theme and sort of a redemption for her. As it was, it was just kind of an afterthought.

Mark my words you guys, I am going to read this entire thread. But first I'm going to plonk down my uninfluenced-by-you-guys thoughts because after I read this entire thread you influential sumbitches will probably have changed my mind between 56 and 93 times. Because of peer pressure and all that. You know how it is.

1. SEXY AS FUCK - I want Daniel Craig to make love to me in the shower and then try to shoot a glass of expensive liquor off of my head. He's so damn good at this it hurts. He's so damn suave he makes Liam Neeson look like Honey Boo Boo. He's so damn cool he makes Michael Fassbender look like Honey Boo Boo.

2. SCARY AS FUCK - Javier Bardem is also so damn good at this it hurts. After Daniel Craig is done with me, and I say this as the most heterosexual man in the entire Ociania/South East Asian region, I want Javier Bardem to make love to me in the shower and then shoot me.

3. SCARY AS DRAGONS - Those things are so scary they make salt-water crocs look like Honey Boo Boo.

4. DUMBEST HACKING SCENES - If I wanted to watch a screensaver I'd watch a screensaver. And I often do. So, on second thoughts, great hacking scenes.

5. DUMBEST MONEYPENNY - After you shot Bond off the top of that train Moneypenny, why ... the fuck ... didn't you also shoot the bad guy?

6. DUMBEST BAD GUY - Why did you try to shoot holes in the bucket of a digger? And then, when Bond spent a good 12-14 minutes completely out in the open while he wobbled his way over the arm of that excavator, why didn't you shoot him then?

7. CRUNCHY CRASHES - I loved both the train and helicopter crashes very much.

8. CRUNCH-LESS BANTER - I enjoy me some banter as much as the next banter-enjoyer, but too much of the dialogue felt weirdly flat to me. Bond was good at it, but M, Q and Moneypenny were mostly fairly lacklustre at returning fire.

9. I WANT TO VISIT TURKEY - I want to visit Turkey. Probably won't ride a motorbike across any rooves though. But I might let a man bleed to death. It's too soon to tell just how I'm going to play it.

10. I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER 10 - I don't have a number 10 right now but mark my words you guys, I am going to read this entire thread, and memories will be jogged and I will have more opinions gush from my lobes and onto your screen. You mark my words.

Bucho, you are my favorite New Zealander. After PJ, all the guys at WETA and the film crew.

AAnd I imagine that's exactly what she'll be like. Key advisor/analyst/security/uber-assistant who gets in on the action (which she did at M's hearing, at which point she was already serving as Mallory's "assistant"). Nobody ever said she is just a secretary like the character in the older films.

From field agent to secretary? That really rubbed me the wrong way. How about an intelligence analyst or executive protection for M?

She demonstrated that she was not cut out for field work when she allowed Patrice to escape. I love that Moneypenny will have appeared in an action role in Skyfall, but lets not try and turn her into Xena or something. She's clearly not cut out for "protection work". I think it's cool that at one time she was involved in a more action oriented role, but that now she's focused on other stuff. I'd be appalled if they keep trying to use her as an action heroine in the sequels, as that would be missing the point of her arc in Skyfall. Also, she's not a secretary. She's an executive assistant dealing with the most highly classified secrets in UK intelligence. It's nothing to sneer at.

She demonstrated that she was not cut out for field work when she allowed Patrice to escape. I love that Moneypenny will have appeared in an action role in Skyfall, but lets not try and turn her into Xena or something. She's clearly not cut out for "protection work". I think it's cool that at one time she was involved in a more action oriented role, but that now she's focused on other stuff. I'd be appalled if they keep trying to use her as an action heroine in the sequels, as that would be missing the point of her arc in Skyfall. Also, she's not a secretary. She's an executive assistant dealing with the most highly classified secrets in UK intelligence. It's nothing to sneer at.

Have to disagree. She's not cut out for fieldwork because she missed a nigh-impossible shot between two men scuffling on a moving train? Bond couldn't shoot a guy on a ladder in the same movie (and that's not counting his fuck-ups in Casino and Solace). And there was no Eve "arc", she doesn't struggles with what happened to Bond and ultimately decide to find a new role, she's working with him in the field in Macau, a fact that despite some quipping Bond himself seems to have no problem with. If the secretary thing (sorry, "executive assistant") had arisen organically from events in the movie it might be more forgivable, but as it stands it's awkwardly shoe-horned in to fit this bizarre return to the status-quo of the old films.

If the secretary thing (sorry, "executive assistant") had arisen organically from events in the movie it might be more forgivable, but as it stands it's awkwardly shoe-horned in to fit this bizarre return to the status-quo of the old films.

It seems perfectly organic to me. We're shown the incident which causes her to doubt that she's in the correct place professionally, a few scenes later she expresses this to Bond whilst still operating in the field and then, by the conclusion of the movie, she has made her decision to step back from field work. I didn't particularly need additional scenes of Moneypenny crying to her boyfriend on the phone or sitting at her desk whilst looking up internal vacancies on the MI5 website. Also: You and I obviously have completely different understandings of the words "awkwardly" and "bizarre".

I think the performance throughout the film clearly shows Eve learns that she does not want to be a field agent. Don't get the "shoehorn" argument at all. Also it doesn't mean she won't be useful in future Bond films.

Hey, obviously it worked for a lot of people, but I found it super-jarring that Skyfall's ultimate culmination is to basically dismiss all the interesting, stripped down elements introduced by Casino Royale (and to be fair, sort of botched by Quantum of Solace) in favor of all the stuff that Casino was a welcome break from. I certainly think a lighter return to gadget-centric Bond could be fun, but it seems like the sort of tonal shift you'd save for a lead-change, while letting the Craig series have its own voice. Obviously this wasn't a literal prequel, but the suggestion that having rickety, battered "I may be too old for this shit" Bond's three-movie story end at ostensibly the beginning of his career felt less like an organic progression and more like the creators throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater in order to distance themselves from Quantum.

EDIT: And I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it the "I never caught your name" thing is stupid. Robin stupid? No. But stupid.

Did he really correct her driving? Didn't he just tease her a bit because she clipped a car and lost one of the side-view mirrors... and then she as sort of a comeback clips another car on purpose to lose the other mirror. Seemed more like humorous banter than hinting at Moneypenny not being fit for the field. Or am I forgetting some other beat during the car chase?

I believe he's referring to the scene where Bond grabs the wheel and slams them into the other car, which I took less as Moneypenny can't drive and more of a typical "high risk, high reward" Bond move.

Listen, I don't want to harp on this particular aspect like it's the worst thing in the history of cinema. To me it's just the most glaring example of the movie feeling like half big dramatic send-off, half reboot. I realize the fact that they're milking Craig for two more movies limits their options from a narrative perspective, so we weren't going to get something as dramatic as "Bond makes some hard choices himself and becomes M, Eve gets 007 status" or something crazy like that. But the Moneypenny reveal, in the end, is so inconsequential (she's sort of a token element of the classic films), you wonder why they didn't just have him interacting with a cute IT girl or something then drop the reveal that way. Hell, it would at least explain how he doesn't know her name.

While she's shown to be a competent field agent throughout the movie, her incredulity at some of Bond's more outlandish stunts in that opening scene just highlight the fact that she lacks the reckless, self destructive streak that makes Bond, well, Bond. Combine that with her stating at one point that she really likes working with Mallory, it makes her decision at the end make a lot more sense.

Ultimately, it's her choice, it's not a demotion, and I doubt they'll have her be "just a secretary" in future installments. This movie proved both her and Mallory can kick some ass, need be.

APresumably because they want her to be more of an actual character who has a little more of a backstory than "the random girl he flirts with at the office." Seems like a good compromise between old and new.

But the Moneypenny reveal, in the end, is so inconsequential (she's sort of a token element of the classic films), you wonder why they didn't just have him interacting with a cute IT girl or something then drop the reveal that way. Hell, it would at least explain how he doesn't know her name.

It wasn't inconsequential to my father who let out a loud "Ah," noise when that was revealed, and it wasn't inconsequential to me either as I liked the fact that they had given a "token element of the classic films" some background and depth.

But then if you get her involved with the action, you get into the weird territory of having an organization whose only two competent agents are Bond and the secretary. Unless M and Q are going to join in and they all just roam around having wacky adventures, Archer style. Which, granted, is a direction I would totally be on-board for.

It wasn't inconsequential to my father who let out a loud "Ah," noise when that was revealed, and it wasn't inconsequential to me either as I liked the fact that they had given a "token element of the classic films" some background and depth.

I mean, I'm glad you and your father were stoked, but to me this was less giving an existing character background and depth, and more creating a new, interesting character then giving her an old character's name (again, the Robin effect). I think something like Michael Caine's portrayal of Alfred in the recent Batman trilogy is a better example of developing a bit part into a more nuanced, interesting version without going way outside the bounds of the existing fiction. And if it wasn't supposed to be a silly "wink wink, nudge nudge" gag along the lines of the ejector seat, why not just name her outright?

EDIT: I will say though that based on the tone of your posts it seems that comparatively it worked much more for you than it annoyed me, so objectively I can't say it was a bad way to go. I'll also freely admit to not being a die-hard Bond fan (seen most of the films, read some of the books), so I was slightly more invested in the character of "Eve" (mildly) than I was in traditional role of Moneypenny (eh).

I mean, I'm glad you and your father were stoked, but to me this was less giving an existing character background and depth, and more creating a new, interesting character then giving her an old character's name (again, the Robin effect). I think something like Michael Caine's portrayal of Alfred in the recent Batman trilogy is a better example of developing a bit part into a more nuanced, interesting version without going way outside the bounds of the existing fiction.

If I'm honest with you, I don't fully understand your complaint. The writers obviously knew that they had to bring back some of the established elements of the franchise and took the opportunity to give Moneypenny a backstory. If Batman Begins had begun with Alfred in the Burma forest before eventually getting employed by the Waynes, would you really have complained that they had taken an interesting new character and given him an old character's name?

But then if you get her involved with the action, you get into the weird territory of having an organization whose only two competent agents are Bond and the secretary. Unless M and Q are going to join in and they all just roam around having wacky adventures, Archer style. Which, granted, is a direction I would totally be on-board for.

AI've got more to say about Moneypenny and not the time to say it, so instead I just want to point out a key fact which is that my criticism of her skills as an operative does not revolve around the fact she accidentally shot Bond instead of Patrice. It is her failure to take a second shot. It's that she then had a My Pet Goat moment in the wake of Bond's "death" and just looked Patrice in the eye, gobsmacked, as he cruised casually to freedom. You could even say that with her failure in that instant, Moneypenny was responsible for the deaths of the agents Silva outed. Can I sympathize? Yes. But if you lack the killer instinct for wet work, get the bloody hell out and let someone in who can do the job required.

All that said though, she's got a good heart though and is clearly a patriot, and I am certain she can do excellent and valuable work at M's side going forward.

That seemed odd to me too. They've worked together on the Macau mission and yet they've never been introduced?

Not only that but the beginning of Eve's "arc" is that, in following a direct order from the top, she takes a 50/50 shot that comes up on the wrong side. It's conceivable that, in spite of the fact she was just following an order from M, that kind of dealio might give an agent the heebies. But then she goes on that Macau mission and not only doesn't fuck up, she saves Bond's ass. And not only does she save Bond's ass, she saves said ass after he's messed up her operational ability by disconnecting communications. At that point, as well as later on in the shootout at the inquiry, she's proven to be plenty competent and cool-headed in the field. That's what makes her decision at the end feel like an out of character change of heart and self-demotion, which is why it comes across like an inorganic and awkwardly shoehorned kink in the story.

But then other characterizations and arcs in the film also feel somewhat off, including that of our man. Daniel Craig's performance is awesomely watchable but he's let down by some half-baked character writing. The film fails to follow up on him being way under par physically and psychologically in the tests with any evidence of that lack of readiness in the field. One minute Bond is a mess, the next he's perfectly fine and dandy, with no ramp in between. It sets up an internal struggle and then completely fails fo pay it off. The film fails to give Bond a completely satisfying or coherent arc just as it fails to give Moneypenny one.

If I'm honest with you, I don't fully understand your complaint. The writers obviously knew that they had to bring back some of the established elements of the franchise and took the opportunity to give Moneypenny a backstory. If Batman Begins had begun with Alfred in the Burma forest before eventually getting employed by the Waynes, would you really have complained that they had taken an interesting new character and given him an old character's name?

It's sort of apples and oranges, but yes if he had hung out with Batman most of the movie fighting crime as Other Nameingston until the last five minutes, in which he retires from crime-fighting to become a butler and finally introduces himself not as Other Nameingston but with his real name, Alfred Whoselastnameescapesme, then yeah, I'd probably be at about the same level of irritation: mild. I guess I just don't see what value Eve being Moneypenny brings besides a bit of sneaky nostalgia-bait. No expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Moneypenny's main character trait ineffectually lusting after Bond? So either that's what we get in the new films, or they have her do a bunch of action stuff in which case, why make her Moneypenny in the first place? I'll freely admit, it doesn't really hurt anything, and if it gets Bond fans stoked then cool, mission accomplished. But to me it just felt like another example of the movie tripping over itself to get back to classic Bond.

Also, I concede all future arguments on the subject because holy shit I don't devote this much thought and energy to movies I love or hate, so for one I walked away from mildly pleased I'm gonna have to tap out.